CPAG search

Decision in brief

RS v SSWP [2026] UKUT 85 and the decision of a Tribunal of Commissioners in Northern Ireland in DT v Department for Communities (PIP) [2022] NICom54 (C29/21-22PIP) cited

Decision in brief

Tribunal erred in not allowing the clamant or her representative the opportunity to make submissions regarding the Google Maps evidence that the tribunal used to assess the claimant’s walking ability – that was a procedural error under Rule 2(2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 as the claimant was rendered unable to participate effectively in the proceedings.

Decision in brief

Tribunal erred in allowing appeal on basis of alleged failure of the Tell Us Once service to advise her to claim and alleged disability discrimination – the Tell Us Once service is not responsible for alerting individuals to their potential claim for benefit – neither did it owe a general duty of care to the appellant in these circumstances – no breach of requirement to make reasonable adjustments – 

‘it cannot be discriminatory not to raise an issue about the ability to claim benefit when the body concerned is not authorised to deal with the claim’ 

– nothing in the time limit for claiming to provide a breach of claimant’s human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights – even if that were not correct, any difference in treatment of the claimant would be justifiable as a measure providing a cut-off date for entitlement aimed at the immediate post-bereavement benefit is not ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’.

Decision in brief

Claimant’s leave to remain ended on 22 May 2020, his domestic appeal rights having been exhausted and his extended leave to remain under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 having ended on that date – claimant’s subsequent application to the European Court of Human Rights on 18 November 2020 did not alter that – neither did his fresh application for leave on 8 March 2021 – tribunal correctly found that claimant’s entitlement to UC ended on 22 May 2020 as he had become a person subject to immigration control – but Secretary of State’s attempt to use Home Office evidence of a deportation order of 21 October 2015, not previously sought by the Secretary of State even though it could have been, as evidence of an earlier loss of entitlement did not meet Ladd v Marshall principles for post-decision consideration as new evidence.

Decision in brief

Claimant had said that he ‘would like to attend the appeal but not in person if it can be done by video conference that would be ideal’ – tribunal erred in proceeding in the claimant’s absence on (alleged) basis that he had indicated that he ‘did not wish to participate in an oral hearing’ – that was perverse on the evidence as well as being procedurally unfair – claimant was wrongly not given a chance to attend a hearing and so was unable to effectively participate in the proceedings.